Chennai Court November 1951 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Nodiyodath Kunhi Krishnan's Son, Chozhi Vs. Melepurakkal deceased Rama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad763; (1952)IMLJ834
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a civil miscellaneous second appeal against the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam in A.S. No. 144 of 1949, setting aside that of the District Munsif of Chowghat in E.A. No. 233 of 1949.2. The appellant executed a possessory mortgage deed dated 29th July 1913 in favour of the respondent. Under that document the mortgagor was liable to pay Rs. 2 to the mortgagee in addition to the income for the purpose of paying the Government assessment as the income was not sufficient to pay the interest. The appellant filed O.S. No. 145 of 1948 for redemption of the mortgage. In that suit he claimed relief under Sections 8 and 9 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, (IV (4) of 1938). He contended that the Rs. 2 payable by him represented a payment towards interest on the mortgage amount and that the amount was liable to be scaled down under Section 8 of Act IV (4) of 1938. The District Munsif accepted his contention and scaled down the debt on 20th O...
Balusu Prabhakara Pattabhi Ramarao Vs. Chintapalli Venkata Subbama
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad807; (1952)1MLJ291
Rajagopalan, J.1. The appellant was the decree-holder in O.S. No. 130 of 1947 and the respondent in appeal was one of the judgment debtors. When four items of property belonging to the judgment debtor, respondent in this appeal, were attached in execution of the decree, she applied for exemption of those items from attachment under Section 60(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. There was little dispute about item 4 even in the trial court. The learned District Munsif held that the judgment debtor was entitled to the benefit of Clause (c) but only with respect to item 1, the house and item 2, the vacant site attached to the house, but not with reference to item 3, a detached vacant site. Against that order of the learned District Judge, the decreeholder has preferred this appeal.2. The learned District Judge has found that the judgment debtor, Venkatasubbamma, had a small piece of agricultural property of her own. Besides, she cultivated 13 acres of land on lease. In fact she was a joint...
In Re: Gangiredla Mathayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad26; (1952)IMLJ507
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision case filed against the order made by the Additional District Magistrate of Visakhapatam in C. R. P. No. 2 of 1950 which raises an interesting point.2. The facts are: Gangiredla Mathayya and six others were charge-sheeted by the police for offences under Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C. This case was enquired into in the Court of the Taluk Magistrate of Bimlipatam as preliminary register case No. 3 of 1949. The Magistrate after hearing witnesses came to the conclusion that only offences under Sections 325 and 323, I. P. C. were made out and framed charges and wanted to proceed with the trial. Thereupon the Additional District Magistrate has been moved on the ground that the Taluk Magistrate Bimlipatam had improperly discharged these accused for offences triable exclusively by the Sessions Court and the Additional District Magistrate in what can legitimately be described as an elaborate and considered order has directed...
In Re: Muthuswami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad135; 1957CriLJ142
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision case filed against the conviction and sentence of the City First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, in Crl. Ap. No. 19 of 1951 confirming the conviction and sentence of the learned Stationary Sub Magistrate, Erode, in C. C. No. 159 of 1950.2. The facts are brief: There has been ill-feeling between the complainant in this case and the accused and this ill-feeling seems to have spread from the masters to their Quadrupeds. There was an impounding of the cattle of the complainant by the accused one fort-night before this alleged occurrence and the complainant had to pay money for releasing the cattle. One fortnight thereafter the complainant has launched this case on the ground that a horse belonging to the accused grazed in a six acre field of his cultivated with cholam and horse-gram. The crop of horse-gram is specifically mentioned as having been in flower and grown to a height of one foot. The horse was said to have been taken to the pound an...
Kalluri Krishnayya Vs. Potti Venkata Subbarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad831; (1952)IMLJ638
Subba Rao, J.1. This second appeal raises a question in regard to the applicability of Section 9 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to debts incurred after the Act came into force.2. The facts are simple and are not in dispute. The defendant executed a promissory note Ex. P. 1 dated 5-1-1943 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1024-6-0. The prior promissory notes, which culminated in Ex. P. 1, are as follows :Ex. P. 2, dated 7-1-1940.Ex. P. 3, dated 9-1-1937.Ex. P. 4, dated 11-1-1934.3. The consideration for the earliest promissory note was Rs. 500. It will be seen from the aforesaid dates that the original debt was contracted after 1st October 1932 and that ,Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 were executed subsequent to the Act, i.e., 22-3-1938. The plaintiff filed O. S. No. 22 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Ongole, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1024-6-0 due under the promissory note Ex. P. 1 with subsequent interest at 9 per...
In Re: V. Abdul Azeez and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad62; (1952)IMLJ536
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision petition filed against the convictions and sentences of the learned Sessions Judge of Chittoor division in C. A. No. 49 of 1950 confirming the convictions and modifying the sentences of the learned District Magistrate of Chittoor in C. C. No. 216 of 1950.2. The established facts are: The accused are Muslims. They have been living near the house of a Muslim girl P. W. 1 who was under the lawful guardianship of her father P. W. 2. The girl was unmarried at the time of the occurrence and her age was 15 and was living with her father P. W. 2 and brother P. W. 3 in Mangasamudram, a suburb of Chittoor. On account of these accused being Muslims and neighbours they have been frequenting the house of P. W. 2 and have been on friendly terms with P. Ws. 1 to 3. On the evening of 13-7-1950 at about 5 p.m. accused 2 came to the girl P. W. 1 while her parents had gone to another village and gave her a chit of paper. On seeing P. W. 3 enter the house, ...
Chintapalli Venkataratnam Vs. Merla Seshamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad591; (1952)IMLJ264
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been placed before us under the directions of the Honourable the Chief Justice for a reconsideration of the decision in 'C.M.A. Nos. 316 and 391 of 1947 by our learned brethren Subba Rao and Somasundaram, JJ. As the case itself has been referred to us and not merely a question, it is necessary to state the facts out of which this appeal arises in order to appreciate the questions that arise for decision.2. The legal representative of the third defendant in O. S. No. 16 of 1939 and who is also her adopted son is the appellant in this appeal and also the petitioner in C.M.P. Nos. 8384 and 8627 of 1950. O. S. No. 16 of 1939 was Instituted to enforce a mortgage dated 6th November 1926 for a sum of Rs. 12,000, executed by defendants 1 to 3 and also by the first defendant as guardian of his minor son the fourth defendant. The first defendant is the husband of the second defendant and the third defendant is the first defendant's paternal uncle's widow. S...
A. Natesa Asari Vs. State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad481; (1953)2MLJ684
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. We have already held that the acquisitions are for a public purpose and that therefore they are not open to objection under Article 31(2) of the Constitution. It is now argued Before us that the acquisitions are in contravention of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) and that therefore they are invalid. Two objections have been put forward on this score. One is that the petitioners had no opportunity to prefer objections under Section 5-A of the Act. To understand the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to set out in brief the scheme of the Act. Under Section 4 a preliminary notification is made for the acquisition of the property for any public purpose. Under Section 5-A objections are heard and then the final order is passed under Section 6.Thereafter notice to all the persons is given under Section 9 and after enquiry is held, an awards passed under Section 16. On the making of an award under Section 16, ...
Kandula Radhakrishna Rao and ors. Vs. the Province of Madras Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad718; (1952)IMLJ494
1. These appeals nave been posted before a Full Bench because of a conflict of opinion between Division Benches of this Court ('Province of Madras v. Firm of Kani-Golla Sivalakshminarayana', ILR (1850) Mad 421 and 'Provincial Government of Madras v. Veerabhadrafpa', ILR (1951) Mad 257) on the interpretation of some of the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, Madras Act IX of 1939. All these appeals arise out of suits filed for the recovery of amounts of sales tax alleged to have been illegally levied from the respective plaintiffs. Appeals Nos. 365, 468 and 551 of 1947 arise out of three original suits Nos. 12, 33 and 34 of 1946 which were disposed of by a common judgment by the learned District Judge of West Godavari at Ellore. All these suits were dismissed and the plaintiffs are the appellants before us. App. No. 447 of 1947 is from the decree dismissing O. S. No. 37 of 1945. This suit was disposed of by the same learned Judge who disposed of the three first mentioned sui...
President of F. 1250 Chowghat Firka P.C.C. Co-operative Society Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad996; (1952)IMLJ459
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This civil revision petition is against the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Chowghat decreeing the suit brought by the plaintiff claiming a sum, of Us. 238 towards rent due in respect of a godown belonging to the plaintiff for the month of February 1949. The defendant is the petitioner. The plaintiff is the manager of a wakf and the suit property forms part of the family wakf created for the benefit of the descendants of the wakif and the ultimate benefit vests in poor orphans.The property is a godown said to have been constructed for the purpose of storing food-grains. It was taken up by the Government and in the first instance was allowed to be kept by one of the distributors. Subsequently, the defendant became the occupier of the premises at the stipulated rent of Rs. 285 per month. By Ex. B.2 dated 6-12-1948 the defendant-society gave notice to the plaintiff that since the godown was no longer required for the society's use, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »